1FRE4OI
1FRE4OI 1FRE4OI
Figure 2: Cost of Avoided Emissions per EIA (kilograms per kilowatt hour)Type of Utility-scaleEnergy FacilitySolar (PV) Wind Geothermalconventionalcoal(bituminous)coal with carboncapture (IGCC,90% capture)System-wide cost$0.10 $0.15 $0.13 $0.08 $0.05per kwh (a)Point source CO2 0.938 0.0938 0 0 0emissions (b)Additional life0.077 0.077 0.0039 0.0051 0.0386cycle GHGs (mining,production, transportation,etc.) (c and d)Emissions from0 0.01876 0 0 0carbon captureenergy penalty (20%more coal input)Total emissions 1.015 0.18956 0.0039 0.0051 0.0386Carbon Capture Scam Chapter: 1Grams of avoidedemissionscost per kilogramof avoidedemissions0 0.82544 1.0111 1.0099 0.9764n/a $0.18 $0.13 $0.08 $0.05Sourcesa) EIA. “Annual Energy Outlook.” 7 May 2014. Accessed 16 March 2015. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfmb) EIA. Accessed 16 March 2015. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11c) life cycle emissions additional for coal and NG derived from Jaramillo, et al. “Comparative Life-Cycle Air Emissions of Coal, Domestic Natural Gas,LNG, and SNG for Electricity Generation.” Environmental Science and Technology. 17(41). 2007. Accessed 16 March 2015. http://www.cmu.edu/gdi/docs/environ.-sci.-technol-2007-jaramillo.pdfd) life cycle emissions from renewables derived form Sovacool, et al. “Comment on ‘Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historicaland Projected Nucelar Power,” Environmental Science and Technology. 47(12). 22 May 2013. Accessed 6 March. 2015. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401667hFigureCost3:ofRelativeAvoidedCostsEmissionsof Avoided CO2 (per kilogram, per kWh)$0.20$0.18$0.16$0.14$0.12$0.10cost per kilogram of avoided emissions$0.08$0.06$0.04$0.02$0.00coal with carbon capture Solar Wind GeothermalType of Utility-scale Energy FacilityPage 14
2Capturing Carbon WillIncrease Climate Pollutionthey must assume that a critical majority of the injected CO2 eventuallystays underground. Unfortunately, this assumption fails.Australia, the second largest exporter of coal afterIndonesia, announced in 2009 a new initiativecalled the Global CCS Institute to promote CCSdevelopment world-wide. 82 The Institute says thebusiness case for carbon capture rests on the ‘twinpillars’ of public support and market opportunity. 83The exorbitant cost of CCS and political difficulty ingenerating taxpayer support has made proponentsturn more and more to market opportunity, at theexpense of theoretical integrity in the argument thatCCS could help the climate.CC-EOR Is an Oil Industry StrategyCCS proponents do not bother to hide that themajor selling point behind carbon capture is itsrole in ‘enhanced oil recovery’ (EOR) – which is nota better method of cleaning up spilled oil, as onemight guess the term means. They aren’t recoveringoil, since they never had it in the first place. And‘enhanced’ doesn’t mean any improvement in quality.In fact, the oil is more highly saturated with CO2,so it’s worse for the climate. EOR is a euphemism forincreasing oil extraction.Responsible for 6% of U.S. oil production today,up from virtually nothing in the 1980s, industryclaims to have been using CO2-EOR for more thanthree decades. CO2-EOR works by pumping CO2underground to force out oil that otherwise couldnot be extracted. 84 Some claim that without CO2injection 65% of the oil would be left underground. 85In other words, under the auspices of helping theclimate, carbon capture will be used to increase oilextraction by as much as 185%.© Bernd Lauter / GreenpeacePage 15
- Page 2 and 3: Greenpeace is an independentcampaig
- Page 5 and 6: CCS Is A Costly Distraction1That Ca
- Page 8 and 9: “If our nation is to benefit from
- Page 10 and 11: Petra Nova (NRG Energy and JX Nippo
- Page 12 and 13: “[I]n Pennsylvania, that’s a li
- Page 16 and 17: “The advancement of CCS technolog
- Page 18 and 19: Oil companies have turned to EOR to
- Page 20 and 21: Sequestration is a Bad Bet;People -
- Page 22 and 23: Figure 6: Potential Sites for CO2 S
- Page 24 and 25: CO2 Capture Will Increase theEnviro
- Page 26 and 27: 5ConclusionEven if we could manage
- Page 28 and 29: References1“Quick-Change Planet:
- Page 30 and 31: 56”Parish Power Plant takes steps
- Page 32 and 33: 112”Leakages in the Utsira format
- Page 34: Greenpeace is an independentcampaig
2Capturing Carbon WillIncrease Climate Pollutionthey must assume that a critical majority of the injected CO2 eventuallystays underground. Unfortunately, this assumption fails.Australia, the second largest exporter of coal afterIndonesia, announced in 2009 a new initiativecalled the Global CCS Institute to promote CCSdevelopment world-wide. 82 The Institute says thebusiness case for carbon capture rests on the ‘twinpillars’ of public support and market opportunity. 83The exorbitant cost of CCS and political difficulty ingenerating taxpayer support has made proponentsturn more and more to market opportunity, at theexpense of theoretical integrity in the argument thatCCS could help the climate.CC-EOR Is an Oil Industry StrategyCCS proponents do not bother to hide that themajor selling point behind carbon capture is itsrole in ‘enhanced oil recovery’ (EOR) – which is nota better method of cleaning up spilled oil, as onemight guess the term means. They aren’t recoveringoil, since they never had it in the first place. And‘enhanced’ doesn’t mean any improvement in quality.In fact, the oil is more highly saturated with CO2,so it’s worse for the climate. EOR is a euphemism forincreasing oil extraction.Responsible for 6% of U.S. oil production today,up from virtually nothing in the 1980s, industryclaims to have been using CO2-EOR for more thanthree decades. CO2-EOR works by pumping CO2underground to force out oil that otherwise couldnot be extracted. 84 Some claim that without CO2injection 65% of the oil would be left underground. 85In other words, under the auspices of helping theclimate, carbon capture will be used to increase oilextraction by as much as 185%.© Bernd Lauter / GreenpeacePage 15
Change language